DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS deductions, or banking transactions does not meet the\nthreshold for proving the genuineness of the claimed expenses. The appellant's\nfailure to provide primary supporting evidence, coupled with the non-compliance of\nsummoned parties, supports the AO's position that the genuineness of these\nexpenses remains unverified.\n2. Banking Channels for Transactions\nWhile the appellant has argued that conducting

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 206C where assessee is not treated as assessee-in-default if he furnishes certificate from an accountant in Form No.27BA certifying that such buyer has furnished return of income u/s 139, has taken into account transaction for computing the income and has paid the due taxes. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal of assessee. Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. 7. Before

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 206C where assessee is not treated as assessee-in-default if he furnishes certificate from an accountant in Form No.27BA certifying that such buyer has furnished return of income u/s 139, has taken into account transaction for computing the income and has paid the due taxes. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal of assessee. Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. 7. Before

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 206C where assessee is not treated as assessee-in-default if he furnishes certificate from an accountant in Form No.27BA certifying that such buyer has furnished return of income u/s 139, has taken into account transaction for computing the income and has paid the due taxes. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal of assessee. Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. 7. Before

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY Pillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

TDS certificates and copy of statement Bank account, cash book maintained by the assessee. d) The ITR shows the source of income of the assessee as salary from Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. 3 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO e) During the demonetization period assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 31,65,000/-in the bank

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 145. However, the appellant did not file sales register depicting that amount invoiced and amount actually received and offered to tax. The appellant filed copies of bank statement but from bank statement the invoices raised by the appellant cannot be correlated and it cannot be established that the alleged receipts are offered to tax. 5.7 In view

YOGENDRA KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS. During the course of hearing, the only argument raised by the ld. AR is that though the amendment in section 40(a) for disallowance of 30% of the expenditure was made with effect from assessment year 2015-16, the amendment being curative in nature, the same should be applied retrospectively including the impugned assessment year. It was further submitted

MONIKA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 251. The appellant was under bona fide belief that due to recent amendment, it was obligatory for the CIT(A) to set aside cach & every case completed u/s 144 to file of AO and therefore appellant in distress, was waiting for initiation of set aside proceedings by the AO instead of approaching next Judicial Forum 6. That the factum

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 69 are not applicable. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore it is submitted that the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted. Conclusion In view of the aforesaid facts it is submitted that there is no discrepancy in the valuation of closing stock

RAVI MANOHAR BATWARA,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-1, JAIPUR

Section 263 of the Act and thus he set aside the assessment order to be made afresh SHRI RAVI MOHAN BATWARA VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR in the light of his observation made in his order. We have taken into consideration the orders of the lower authorities and found that if the assessing officer has made enquiries during the course

INDEXONE TRADECONE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS @ 1% was deducted. In case of any doubt, these persons could have been summoned. Even in last scrutiny assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11, the disallowance of brokerage to Directors and relatives made by the ld. AO by way of enhancement in G.P. rate was totally deleted by Id. CIT(A).” 5. The ld DR is heard